12/16/2015

G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 1992 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR

THIRDDIVISION
[G.R.No.97765.September24,1992.]
KHOSROWMINUCHER,Petitioner,v.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSandARTHURW.SCALZO,
JR.,Respondents.
DeLeon,DeLeon,CasanovaAssociatesforPetitioner.
Luna,Sison,&ManasforPrivateRespondent.

SYLLABUS

1.REMEDIALLAWSPECIALCIVILACTIONCERTIORARIDISMISSALOFACTIONBASEDONERRONEOUSASSUMPTION,
AGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETION.Whilethetrialcourtcorrectlydeniedthemotiontodismiss,thepublicrespondent
gravelyabuseditsdiscretionindismissingCivilCaseNo.8845691onthebasisofanerroneousassumptionthatsimply
because of the Diplomatic Note, the private respondent is clothed with diplomatic immunity, thereby divesting the trial
courtofjurisdictionoverhisperson.Privaterespondenthimself,inhisPretrialBrieffiledon13June1990,unequivocally
states that he would present documentary evidence consisting of DEA records on his investigation and surveillance of
plaintiffandonhispositionanddutiesasDEAspecialagentinManila.Havingthusreservedhisrighttopresentevidence
in support of his position, which is the basis for the alleged diplomatic immunity, the barren selfserving claim in the
belatedmotiontodismisscannotberelieduponforareasonable,intelligentandfairresolutionoftheissueofdiplomatic
immunity.Thepublicrespondentthenshouldhavesustainedthetrialcourtsdenialofthemotiontodismiss.Verily,such
should have been the most proper and appropriate recourse. It should not have been overwhelmed by the selfserving
Diplomatic Note whose belated issuance is even suspect and whose authenticity has not yet been proved. The undue
hastewithwhichrespondentCourtyieldedtotheprivaterespondentsclaimisarbitrary.
2.ID.ACTIONSMOTIONTODISMISSGROUNDSLACKOFCAUSEOFACTIONWHEREDEFENDANTISADIPLOMAT.
Itmayatoncebestatedthateveniftheprivaterespondentenjoysdiplomaticimmunity,adismissalofthecasecannot
beorderedonthegroundoflackofjurisdictionoverhisperson,butratherforlackofacauseofactionbecauseevenifhe
committedtheimputedactandcouldhavebeenotherwisemadeliabletherefor,hisimmunitywouldbaranysuitagainst
himinconnectiontherewithandwouldpreventrecoveryofdamagesarisingtherefrom.
3. ID. ID. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON, HOW ACQUIRED CASE AT BAR. Jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is acquired either by his voluntary appearance or by the service of summons upon him. While in the instant
case, private respondents counsel filed, on 26 October 1988, a motion to quash summons because being outside the
Philippinesandbeinganonresidentalien,heisbeyondtheprocessesofthecourt,whichwasproperlydeniedbythetrial
court,hehadineffectalreadywaivedanydefectintheserviceofthesummonsbyearlierasking,ontwo(2)occasions,
foranextensionoftimetofileananswer,andbyultimatelyfilinganAnswerwithCounterclaim.Thereisnoquestionthat
thetrialcourtacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonoftheprivateRespondent.
4. ID. ID. MOTION TO DISMISS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WHERE THERE IS SUFFICIENT ALLEGATION OF
PERSONALLIABILITYOFDEFENDANTCASEATBAR.Andnowtothecoreissuetheallegeddiplomaticimmunityof
theprivateRespondent. Setting aside for the moment the issue of authenticity raised by the petitioner and the doubts
that surround such a claim, in view of the fact that it took private respondent one (1) year, eight (8) months and
seventeen(17)daysfromthetimehiscounselfiledon12September1988aSpecialAppearanceandMotionaskingfora
firstextensionoftimetofiletheAnswerbecausetheDepartmentsofStateandJusticeoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica
werestudyingthecaseforthepurposeofdetermininghisdefenses,beforehecouldsecuretheDiplomaticNotefromthe
U.S. Embassy in Manila, and even granting for the sake of argument that such note is authentic, the complaint for
damagesfiledbythepetitionerstillcannotbeperemptorilydismissed.Saidcomplaintcontainssufficientallegationswhich
indicate that the private respondent committed the imputed acts in his personal capacity and outside the scope of his
officialdutiesandfunctions.Asdescribedinthecomplaint,hecommittedcriminalactsforwhichheisalsocivillyliable.In
theSpecialAppearancetoQuashSummonsearlieralludedto,ontheotherhand,privaterespondentmaintainsthatthe
claimfordamagesarose"fromanallegedtort."Whethersuchclaimarisesfromcriminalactsorfromtort,therecanbe
noquestionthatprivaterespondentwassuedinhispersonalcapacityforactscommittedoutsidehisofficialfunctionsand
duties. In the decision acquitting the petitioner in the criminal case involving the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
copyofwhichisattachedtohiscomplaintfordamagesandwhichmustbedeemedasanintegralpartthereof,thetrial
courtgavefullcredittopetitionerstheorythathewasavictimofaframeupinstigatedbytheprivateRespondent.Thus,
thereisaprimafacieshowinginthecomplaintthatindeedprivaterespondentcouldbeheldpersonallyliablefortheacts
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=661

1/6

12/16/2015

G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 1992 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR

committedbeyondhisofficialfunctionsorduties.

DECISION

DAVIDE,JR.,J.:

May a complaint for damages be dismissed on the sole basis of a statement contained in a Diplomatic Note, belatedly
issuedafterananswertothesaidcomplainthadalreadybeenfiled,thatthedefendantwasamemberofthediplomatic
staffoftheUnitedStatesDiplomaticMissioninthePhilippinesatthetimethecauseofactionaccrued?
Thisistheissueintheinstantpetition.
On3August1988,petitionerfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManilaacomplaintfordamagesagainstprivate
respondentArthurScalzo,Jr.ThecasewasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.8845691andwasraffledofftoBranch19ofsaid
court. 1 Petitioner alleges therein that he was the Labor Attache of the Embassy of Iran in the Philippines "prior to the
AyatollahKhomeiniregime."On13May1986,privaterespondent,thenconnectedwiththeAmericanEmbassyinManila,
wasintroducedtohimbyacertainJoseIigo,aninformerbelongingtothemilitaryintelligencecommunity,withwhom
petitioner had several business transactions involving Iranian products like carpets, caviar and others. Iigo had
previously sought petitioners assistance in connection with charges of illegal recruitment. According to Iigo, private
respondent was purportedly interested in buying Iranian products, namely caviar and carpets. On this same occasion,
petitionercomplainedtotheprivaterespondentabouttheproblemstheformerwasthenencounteringwiththeAmerican
EmbassyregardingtheexpiredvisasofhiswifeandfellowIranian,AbbasTorabian.Offeringhishelp,privaterespondent
gave the petitioner a calling card showing that the former is an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),
DepartmentofJustice,oftheUnitedStatesofAmericaassignedtotheAmericanEmbassyinManilawithofficialcontacts
with a certain Col. Dumlao head of the AntiNarcotics Command, Philippine Constabulary. Private respondent also
expressedhisintenttopurchasetwo(2)kilosofcaviarworthP10,000.00andinformedthepetitionerthathemighthave
prospectivebuyersforthesegoodshefurtherpromisedtoarrangefortherenewaloftheaforesaidvisasfora$2,000.00
fee.On19May1986,privaterespondentinvitedpetitionertodinneratMariosRestaurantinMakati,MetroManilathe
petitioner accepted. During the said dinner held the very next day, both discussed politics and business. Specifically,
private respondent told petitioner that he wanted to purchase an additional two hundred (200) grams of caviar and
inquiredabouthiscommissionforsellingpetitionerscarpetspetitionerpromiseda10%commissionbasedonprofits.
chanrobles.com.ph : virtual

lawlibrary

Intheeveningof26May1986,privaterespondentcametopetitionersresidenceandaskedtobeentrustedwithapair
of Persian silk carpets with a floor Price of $24,000.00 each, for which he had a buyer. The following day, private
respondent returned to petitioners residence, took the carpets and gave the latter $24,000.00 after about an hour,
privaterespondentreturned,claimedthathehadalreadymadearrangementswithhiscontactsattheAmericanEmbassy
concerningthevisasandaskedfor$2,000.00.Hewasgiventhisamount.Itturnedout,however,thatprivaterespondent
hadpreparedanelaborateplantoframeupthepetitionerandAbbasTorabianforallegedherointraffickingbothwere
falselyarrestedbyprivaterespondentandsomeAmericanandFilipinopoliceofficers,andweretakentoCampCramein
their underwear. Private respondent and his companions took petitioners three (3) suitcases containing various
documents, his wallet containing money and the keys to his house and car, as well as the $24,000.00 which private
respondent had earlier delivered to him. Petitioner and Torabian were handcuffed together for three (3) days and were
not given food and water they were asked to confess to the possession of heroin or else they would be jailed or even
executed by Iranian terrorists. Consequently, the two were charged for the violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425
(DangerousDrugsActof1972)beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofPasig.Theywere,however,acquittedbythesaidcourt
on8January1988.Privaterespondenttestifiedfortheprosecutioninthesaidcase.
Petitioner further alleges in his complaint that private respondent falsely testified against him in the criminal case. The
former also avers that charges of unlawful arrest, robbery and estafa or swindling have already been filed against the
privateRespondent.
HethereforepraysforactualandcompensatorydamagesofnotlessthanP480,000,00($24,000.00)representingthefair
marketvalueofthePersiansilkcarpetand$2,000.00representingtherefundoftheamounthehadgivenforthevisas
moral damages in the amount of P5 million exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00 and attorneys fees of at
leastP200,000.00toanswerforlitigationexpensesincurredforhisdefenseinthecriminalcaseandfortheprosecutionof
thecivilcase.
chanrobleslawlibrary

On14September1988,privaterespondentscounsel,thelawfirmLUNA,SISONANDMANAS,filedaSpecialAppearance
andMotionallegingthereinthatsincetheprivaterespondentisanagentoftheDrugEnforcementAdministrationofthe
UnitedStatesofAmerica,andtheactsandomissionscomplainedofwereperformedbyhimintheperformanceofofficial
functions,thecaseisnowunderstudybytheDepartmentsofStateandJusticeinWashington,D.C.forthepurposeof
determiningwhatdefenseswouldbeappropriatesaidcounselalsoprayedthattheperiodtoanswerbeextendedto13
October1988.2Thisprayerwasgrantedinthe16September1988orderofthecourt.
On 12 October 1988, private respondents aforesaid counsel filed another Special Appearance and Motion seeking a
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=661

2/6

12/16/2015

G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 1992 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR

furtherextensionoftheperiodtoanswerto28October1988becausethelawfirmhadnotyetreceivedthedecisionof
theDepartmentsofStateandJustice.3
On27October1988,privaterespondentscounselfiledaSpecialAppearancetoQuashSummons4allegingthereinthat:
"Theactionbeingapersonalactionfordamagesarisingfromanallegedtort,thedefendantbeingoutsidethePhilippines
and not being a resident of the Philippines, Defendant is beyond the processes of this court," and praying that the
summonsissuedbequashed.ThetrialcourtdeniedthemotioninitsOrderof13December1988.5Unsatisfiedwiththe
saidorder,privaterespondentfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppealswhichwasdocketedasC.A.GR.SP
No17023.InitsDecisionpromulgatedon6October1989,theCourtofAppealsdismissedthepetitionforlackofmerit.6
RespondentthussoughtareviewofthesaiddecisionbyfilingapetitionwiththisCourtwhichwasdocketedasG.R.No.
91173. Said petition was however, dismissed by this Court in the Resolution of 20 December 1989 for noncompliance
withparagraph2ofCircularNo.188moreover,respondentfailedtoshowthattheCourtofAppealshadcommittedany
reversibleerrorinthequestionedjudgment.7
On9March1990,privaterespondentfiledwiththetrialcourthisAnswerinCivilCaseNo.88465918whereinhedenies
thematerialallegationsinthecomplaint,setsforththefollowingAffirmativeDefenses:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Complaint fails to state a cause of action: in having plaintiff and Abbas Torabian arrested on May 27, 1986 and
detained at Camp Crame a quantity of heroin, seized from plaintiff by Philippine police authorities and in seizing the
money used in the drug transaction, defendant acted in the discharge of his official duties or otherwise in the
performanceofhisofficialfunctionsasagentoftheDrugEnforcementAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofJustice."9
andinterposesacounterclaimforP100,000.00toanswerforattorneysfeesandtheexpensesoflitigation.

chanrobleslawlibrary:red

On13June1990,privaterespondentfiledwiththetrialcourttheDefendantsPreTrialBrief,10thepertinentportionsof
whichread:
chanrob1esvirtual1awlibrary

xxx
"DEFENSES
1.Plaintiffscomplaintisfalseandmalicious
2. In having a quantity of heroin and the money used in the drug transaction between him and plaintiff seized from
plaintiffbyP.C.NARCOM,plaintiff(sic)wasactinginthedischargeofhisofficialfunctionsasspecialagentoftheDrug
Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice and was then a member of the U.S. diplomatic mission in the
Philippines.
DEFENDANTSEVIDENCE
Defendantwillpresent:

chanrob1esvirtual1awlibrary

1.HistestimonybydepositionuponwritteninterrogatoriesbecausedefendantlivesandworksoutsidethePhilippinesand
isnotaresidentofthePhilippines.
2.Documentaryevidence,consistingofDEArecordsonhisinvestigationandsurveillanceofplaintiffandonhisposition
anddutiesasDEAspecialagentinMay1980inManilathesewillbeidentifiedbydefendantandpossiblybyanotherDEA
official."11
On 14 June 1990, private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss 12 the case on the ground that as per the copy of
DiplomaticNoteNo.414issuedbytheEmbassyoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,13dated29May1990andcertifiedto
beatrueandfaithfulcopyoftheoriginalbyoneDonaldK.Woodward,ViceConsuloftheUnitedStatesofAmericaon11
June1990,14theEmbassyadvisedtheDepartmentofForeignAffairsoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesthat:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"...ArthurW.Scalzo,wasamemberofthediplomaticstaffoftheUnitedStatesdiplomaticmissionfromhisarrivalin
thePhilippinesonOctober14,1985untilhisdepartureonAugust10,1988....
. . . in May 1986, with the cooperation of Philippine law enforcement officials and in the exercise of his functions as a
member of the mission, Mr. Scalzo investigated Mr. Khosrow Minucher, the plaintiff in the aforementioned case for
allegedly trafficking in a prohibited drug. It is this investigation which has given rise to the plaintiffs complaint. The
EmbassytakesnoteoftheprovisionsofArticle39(2)oftheViennaConventiononDiplomaticRelations,whichprovides
that Mr. Scalzo retains immunity from civil suit for acts performed in the exercise of his functions, as is the case here,
eventhoughhehasdeparted(sic)thecountry."
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Petitioneropposedthemotion.
On25June1990,thetrialcourtissuedanorderdenyingthemotionforbeing"devoidofmerit."15
Private respondent then filed with the public respondent Court of Appeals a petition forcertiorari, docketed therein as
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=661

3/6

12/16/2015

G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 1992 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR

C.A.G.R.SPNo.22505,tonullifytheaforesaidOrderof25June1990.
On31October1990,publicrespondentpromulgatedaDecision16orderingthedismissalofCivilCaseNo.8845691due
tothetrialcourtslackofjurisdictionoverthepersonofthedefendantbecausethelatterpossesseddiplomaticimmunity.
Petitioners motion to reconsider the decision was denied in the public respondents Resolution of 8 March 1991
because:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WhenthereforeMr.ScalzotestifiedintheCriminalCaseagainstKhosrowMinucheritwasinconnectionwithhisofficial
functions as an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States and member (sic) of the American
Mission charged with cooperating with the Philippine law enforcement agency. He therefore, enjoys immunity from
criminal and civil jurisdiction of the receiving State under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations."
17
Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner declares that the public respondent
erred:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I....INNOTDISMISSINGTHEPETITIONFORCERTIORARIFILEDBYSCALZO.
II....INRULINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENTSCALZOISADIPLOMATIMMUNEFROMCIVILSUITCONFORMABLYWITH
THEVIENNACONVENTIONONDIPLOMATICRELATIONS.
III....INNOTFINDINGTHATSCALZOSPARTICIPATIONINTHEBUYBUSTOPERATIONISOUTSIDEOFHISOFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS, HENCE, THAT HE IS NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC
RELATIONS."18
AfterprivaterespondentfiledhisCommenttothepetitionandthepetitionersubmittedhisReplythereto,thisCourtgave
duecoursetothesameandrequiredthepartiestosubmittheirrespectiveMemoranda,whichtheysubsequentlydid.
Wefindmeritinthepetition.
While the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss, the public respondent gravely abused its discretion in
dismissingCivilCaseNo8845691onthebasisofanerroneousassumptionthatsimplybecauseoftheDiplomaticNote,
the private respondent is clothed with diplomatic immunity, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over his
person.Itmayatoncebestatedthateveniftheprivaterespondentenjoysdiplomaticimmunity,adismissalofthecase
cannotbeorderedonthegroundoflackofjurisdictionoverhisperson,butratherforlackofacauseofactionbecause
evenifhecommittedtheimputedactandcouldhavebeenotherwisemadeliabletherefor,hisimmunitywouldbarany
suitagainsthiminconnectiontherewithandwouldpreventrecoveryofdamagesarisingtherefrom.Jurisdictionoverthe
personofthedefendantisacquiredeitherbyhisvoluntaryappearanceorbytheserviceofsummonsuponhim.Whilein
the instant case, private respondents counsel filed, on 26 October 1988, a motion to quash summons because being
outsidethePhilippinesandbeinganonresidentalien,heisbeyondtheprocessesofthecourt,whichwasproperlydenied
bythetrialcourt,hehadineffectalreadywaivedanydefectintheserviceofthesummonsbyearlierasking,ontwo(2)
occasions,foranextensionoftimetofileananswer,andbyultimatelyfilinganAnswerwithCounterclaim.Thereisno
questionthatthetrialcourtacquiredjurisdictionoverthepersonoftheprivateRespondent.
cralawnad

AndnowtothecoreissuetheallegeddiplomaticimmunityoftheprivateRespondent. Setting aside for the moment

theissueofauthenticityraisedbythepetitionerandthedoubtsthatsurroundsuchaclaim,inviewofthefactthatittook
private respondent one (1) year, eight (8) months and seventeen (17) days from the time his counsel filed on 12
September 1988 a Special Appearance and Motion asking for a first extension of time to file the Answer because the
DepartmentsofStateandJusticeoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawerestudyingthecaseforthepurposeofdetermining
hisdefenses,beforehecouldsecuretheDiplomaticNotefromtheU.S.EmbassyinManila,andevengrantingforthesake
of argument that such note is authentic, the complaint for damages filed by the petitioner still cannot be peremptorily
dismissed. Said complaint contains sufficient allegations which indicate that the private respondent committed the
imputed acts in his personal capacity and outside the scope of his official duties and functions. As described in the
complaint, he committed criminal acts for which he is also civilly liable. In the Special Appearance to Quash Summons
earlier alluded to, on the other hand, private respondent maintains that the claim for damages arose "from an alleged
tort." Whether such claim arises from criminal acts or from tort, there can be no question that private respondent was
sued in his personal capacity for acts committed outside his official functions and duties. In the decision acquitting the
petitioner in the criminal case involving the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, copy of which is attached to his
complaint for damages and which must be deemed as an integral part thereof, the trial court gave full credit to
petitionerstheorythathewasavictimofaframeupinstigatedbytheprivateRespondent.Thus,thereisaprimafacie
showinginthecomplaintthatindeedprivaterespondentcouldbeheldpersonallyliablefortheactscommittedbeyondhis
officialfunctionsorduties.
InShaufv.CourtofAppeals,19aftercitingpertinentauthorities,20thisCourtruled:

chanrobleslawlibrary:rednad

"Theaforecitedauthoritiesareclearonthematter.Theystatethatthedoctrineofimmunityfromsuitwillnotapplyand
maynotbeinvolvedwherethepublicofficialisbeingsuedinhisprivateandpersonalcapacityasanordinarycitizen.The
cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their
individualcapacity.Thissituationusuallyariseswherethepublicofficialactswithoutauthorityorinexcessofthepowers
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=661

4/6

12/16/2015

G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 1992 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR

vestedinhim.Itisawellsettledprincipleoflawthatapublicofficialmaybeliableinhispersonalprivatecapacityfor
whateverdamagehemayhavecausedbyhisactdonewithmaliceandinbadfaith,orbeyondthescopeofhisauthority
orjurisdiction(Dumlaov.CourtofAppeals,EtAl.,114SCRA247[1982])."
cralawvirtua1awlibrary

EvenArticle31oftheViennaConventiononDiplomaticRelationsadmitsofexceptions.Itreads:

jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy
immunityfromitscivilandadministrativejurisdictionexceptinthecaseof:
chanrob1esvirtual1awlibrary

xxx
(c)anactionrelatingtoanyprofessionalorcommercialactivityexercisedbythediplomaticagentinthereceivingState
outsidehisofficialfunctions.(Emphasissupplied).
Thereisofcoursetheclaimofprivaterespondentthattheactsimputedtohimweredoneinhisofficialcapacity.Nothing
supportsthisselfservingclaimotherthanthesocalledDiplomaticNote.Inshort,insofarastherecordsareconcerned,
privaterespondentdidnotcomeforwardwithevidencetoprovethatindeed,hehadactedinhisofficialcapacity.Itdoes
notappearthatanactualhearingonthemotiontodismisswasconductedandthatprivaterespondentofferedevidence
insupportthereof.Thus,itisapropostoquotewhatthisCourtstatedinUnitedStatesofAmericav.Guinto:21
"ButevenaswearecertainthattheindividualpetitionersinG.R.No.80018wereactinginthedischargeoftheirofficial
functions,wehesitatetomakethesameconclusioninG.R.No.80258.Thecontradictoryfactualallegationsinthiscase
deserveinourviewacloserstudyofwhatactuallyhappenedtotheplaintiffs.Therecordistoomeagertoindicateifthe
defendants were really discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the incident in
questionoccurred.Lackingthisinformation,thisCourtcannotdirectlydecidethiscase.Theneededinquirymustfirstbe
madebythelowercourtsoitmayassessandresolvetheconflictingclaimsofthepartiesonthebasisoftheevidence
thathasyettobepresentedatthetrial.Onlyafteritshallhavedeterminedinwhatcapacitythepetitionerswereacting
at the time of the incident in question will this Court determine, if still necessary, if the doctrine of state immunity is
applicable."
cralawvirtua1awlibrary

It may be mentioned in this regard that private respondent himself, in his Pretrial Brief filed on 13 June 1990,
unequivocally states that he would present documentary evidence consisting of DEA records on his investigation and
surveillanceofplaintiffandonhispositionanddutiesasDEAspecialagentinManila.Havingthusreservedhisrightto
presentevidenceinsupportofhisposition,whichisthebasisfortheallegeddiplomaticimmunity,thebarrenselfserving
claiminthebelatedmotiontodismisscannotberelieduponforareasonable,intelligentandfairresolutionoftheissueof
diplomaticimmunity.
The public respondent then should have sustained the trial courts denial of the motion to dismiss. Verily, such should
have been the most proper and appropriate recourse. It should not have been overwhelmed by the selfserving
Diplomatic Note whose belated issuance is even suspect and whose authenticity has not yet been proved. The undue
hastewithwhichrespondentCourtyieldedtotheprivaterespondentsclaimisarbitrary.
WHEREFORE,thechallengeddecisionofpublicrespondentof31October1990inC.A.G.R.SPNo.22505isSETASIDE
and the Order of 25 June 1990 of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 8845691 denying
privaterespondentsMotiontoDismissisherebyREINSTATED.
CostsagainstprivateRespondent.
SOORDERED.
Bidin,RomeroandMelo,JJ.,concur.
Gutierrez,Jr.,J.,isonofficialleave.
Endnotes:

1.Rollo,144149.
2.Rollo,4546.
3.Rollo,4849.
4.Id.,5157.
5.Id.,5860.
6.Id.,6165.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=661

5/6

12/16/2015

G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : SEPTEMBER 1992 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR

7.Id.,66.

8.Rollo,150154.

9.Id.,152.

10.Id.,155158.

11.Rollo,157158.

12.Id.,159163.

13.Annex"F"ofMemorandumforPetitionerId.,164165.

14.Id.,166.

15.Rollo,167.

16. Id., 7275. Per Associate Justice Fernando A. Santiago, concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente V.
MendozaandJustoP.Torres,Jr.

17.Id.,76.

18.Rollo,10.

19.191SCRA713,728[1990].

20. Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications v. Aligaen, 33 SCRA 368 [1970] and the cases cited
thereinBaerv.Tizon,57SCRA1[1974]Animosv.Phil.VeteransAffairsOffice,174SCRA214[1989].

21.182SCRA644,660[1990].

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=661

6/6